Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[babomb]

When I first saw the 3.5 weapon sizing rules, my first reaction was, "That's lame." I mean, I can understand the points about different balancing and what not; I just don't care. In a game with so much abstraction already, it seems like an odd place to start getting specific. And heck, the 3.0 system wasn't broken so why change it? A greatsword is a light weapon for a storm giant. What's a two-handed weapon for him? Well, a supermegasword, a giant sword, or whatever you want to call it, but it's Gargantuan-sized and does 4d6. That made sense to me, and this new system just seemed silly.

However...

I will soon be starting a 3.5 campaign with mostly newbies. One player has played in some PbP and a brief (1 or 2 sessions) d20 Call of Cthulhu game. One or two others have only the aforementioned CoC campaign under their belts, and the rest are completely new to non-videogame RPGs. To me, it makes sense to have very few house rules so as not to confuse them. So as much as I don't like the 3.5 weapon sizing, I find myself thinking it may be easier on the newbs if I use it. And maybe I'll find it's not so bad. (I haven't actually played a game with 3.5 weapon-sizing yet. My groups have either played 3.0 or played 3.5 with the 3.0 weapon sizing.)

So tell me your experiences with the 3.5 weapon sizing. Did you initially hate it but learn to love it? Like it but grow to loathe it? Or did experience confirm your initial reaction?

 

[pogre]

So tell me your experiences with the 3.5 weapon sizing. Did you initially hate it but learn to love it?

Love it is a little too strong, but I went from hating it to realizing it's not that bad. I embraced the 3.5 rules in total to give them a chance, but this was one of the toughest things to swallow. Really though, it has had very little impact on our game overall. I would suggest trying the 3.5 rule first.

 

[frankthedm]

i felt 3.5 weapon size rules were a severe overeaction to RPGA based play. I can understand tweaking the rules to make sure the large mace doesn't create a simple man sized 2d6 weapon, but begruging the halfling rogue his man sized shortsword is urinating in the face of fantasy tradition.

 

[MerricB]

I've always loved the 3.5e weapon rules - I have just too many problems with the broken and confusing 3e weapon rules.

However, the 3.5e rules aren't complete. They only apply to melee weapons - the missile weapons have a FAQ entry clarifying them (badly, I must say).

I advise using the DMG variant rule of weapon equivalencies (a small longsword = medium shortsword), and most of the problems will evaporate.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

i felt 3.5 weapon size rules were a severe overeaction to RPGA based play. I can understand tweaking the rules to make sure the large mace doesn't create a simple man sized 2d6 weapon, but begruging the halfling rogue his man sized shortsword is urinating in the face of fantasy tradition.

See Weapon Equivalencies variant rule in the DMG.

Also, the idea that a halfling rogue wielding a rapier has to use TWO HANDS and there is no halfling-sized rapier is just really, really dumb. Far stupider than the minor inconveniences the 3.5e rules create.

 

[Alzrius]

I initially didn't like the 3.5E weapon rules much at all. I mean, who ever heard of, say, a small greatsword? It seemed like a contradiction in terms.

That said, I grew to value them. For one thing, they seem more clear and precise. Every weapon goes up or down in its damage potential by size, and doesn't vary. Likewise, what type of weapon it is still scales by size also, and everyone takes a flat -2 penalty for using weapons that are the wrong size for you, period. That makes sense to me, what with balancing and all.

It also helps out because now characters of every size have the full range of weapons. Although probably not many players play at pixies or giants, those that do (or if you need those bad guys armed), you can easily outfit them with the proper weapons now.

All in all, it just seems to make more sense.

 

[Quasqueton]

In 3.0, what size is a Colossal creature's greatsword?

Quasqueton

 

[DungeonMaster]

I've always loved the 3.5e weapon rules - I have just too many problems with the broken and confusing 3e weapon rules.

Sorry, I'm going to have to ask... Like what? If it's roughly like what a human would use as a shortsword then it's a shortsword. There's nothing to "break".
The halfling could use a small rapier if he really really wants one over a dagger. p 162 of the DMG.

Common 3.5 weapon sizing problems:

Dual weild two bastard swords - one of them a "halfling sized" bastard sword - and you get 1d10/1d8 but if you used a "human sized" longsword in your off hand you'de be further penalized.
Use "halfling sized" longspears to get a 1-handed reach weapon. You can dual weild these too for more hilarity.
The 3.5 lance, need I say more? To this day people still argue if it gets 1.5x str and 2-for-1 power attack when mounted and using it in one hand.

 

[DungeonMaster]

In 3.0, what size is a Colossal creature's greatsword?

One size larger than collosal. Does 8d6 damage. DMG p.162.

 

[Storyteller01]

I advise using the DMG variant rule of weapon equivalencies (a small longsword = medium shortsword), and most of the problems will evaporate.

Cheers!

Not snarking, just an observation...

Isn't that essentially 3.0 rules in a different format?